HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARPAL Singh petitioner was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide his order dated 18.1.1984. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, by his order dated 2.7.1984, reduced his sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months but maintained the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months only. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner was running a hotel in the name and style "Sindhi Hotel, Gurdaspur". On 5.4.1983, Dr. Chaman Lal Khullar vested with the powers of Food Inspector under the Prevention of Adulteration Act, visited the hotel premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was keeping 4 -1/2 kgs of Sabat Mash in an open bag. After serving notice Exhibit P.L. on the petitioner, 750 grams of Sabat Mash were purchased by the Food Inspector on payment of Rs. 31.75. The same was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit PF, the contents of the sample contained deed insects and two rat -droppings. The prosecution evidence consists of the testimony of Iqbal Singh P.W.1 and Chaman Lal Food Inspector PW2. The evidence of Iqbal Singh P.W.1 is formal. Chaman Lal Food Inspector PW2 is the solitary witness to prove the purchase of Sabat Mash from the petitioner. The witness admitted in cross -examination that only cooked meals are served at the restaurant and uncooked Mash are not sold at the hotel; that it may be correct that Sabat Mash are cleaned, washed and dried before they are cooked. In this situation it cannot be that the charge under 16(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been brought home to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed and sentence of the petitioner are set aside by giving him the benefit of doubt. Fine, if already paid, shall be refunded. Petition allowed.